Better Lens kit for D50, 18-55 or 28-80

[Arch Stanton]

Which kit lens do you recommend for D50, 18-55 or 28-80?

28-80 is a little cheaper, but I hear 18-55 is a little better.

[George Riehm]

Which lens kit do you recommend for D50, 18-55 or 28-80?

28-80 is a little cheaper, but I hear 18-55 is a little better (wider angle).

The 18-55 would be my pick of the two. 17mm to 24mm would be the wide angle range I would buy in a zoom lens for a dSLR due to the crop factor multiplier of 1.5X. Anything, decent, below 17mm gets expensive quickly, and anything above 24mm takes you out of the wide angle relm (again due to the crop factor on APS-C sensored dSLR's.

If you can go for the extra cost, buy the D50 body and consider the AF-S 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 DX. A much better day-to-day lens in the variable aperture, mid range, zoom group.

But for a budget system the 18-55 kit is hard to beat.

[coldrain]

The 18-70 may have a bit more reach, and may also be constructed better, but it is not a better lens. It vignets in the corners quite badly and abruptly both at 18mm and at 70mm wide open, and it has very strong barrel distortion in 18mm (and pin cushion at 70mm). It also has a rather confusing and annoying placing of the zoom and focus rings (wrong way around).
The 18-55 is surprisingly sharp and contrasty, and not a worse choice at all (and a lot less expensive). And for the price of that 18-70 you can have a 18-55 + Sigma 70-300mm APO DG macro....

If you want to spend more you would be better of looking at the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC. It has some CA problems wide open, but stopped down it beats the 18-70.

[murrays]

The 18-70 may have a bit more reach, and may also be constructed better, but it is not a better lens.

Thom Hogan really likes this lens: http://www.bythom.com/1870lens.htm

Price/Performance winner. This is a far better lens than you'll ever expect for US$300. Far better. Good enough that it stays in my kit for when I want to go light.

-murray

[britkev]

As I've said a few times here in other threads, I am already regretting getting the 28-80 with my D50 last week - 28mm is simply not wide enough on a digital body.

[Jason25]

As I've said in other threads as well, the 28-80 wasn't wide enough for me either, which is why I replaced it with the 18-70 :)

Between the 28-80 and 18-55, go with the 18-55.

[sherlock]

Coldrain:

Thom also says that he'd go with the 18-70 over the 18-55 in his 18-55 review here. (http://www.bythom.com/1855lens.htm) He also says that the 18-55 vignettes as well.

I don't know where you got your info saying that the 18-70 was no better...

[K1W1]

Coldrain:

Thom also says that he'd go with the 18-70 over the 18-55 in his 18-55 review here. (http://www.bythom.com/1855lens.htm) He also says that the 18-55 vignettes as well.

I don't know where you got your info saying that the 18-70 was no better...

Mr (?) Coldrain just likes to speak as if he is an expert on things that I doubt he knows anything about from first hand experience. His specialty seems to be to regurgitate information that he has read oor heard in such a way as to make the reader believe he is an expert on that subject or product.

[coldrain]

Mr K1W1 is just... ah well, lets not start name calling. And the "you have to have first hand experience to have a valid opinion" arguement is the most silly arguement ever.

I do NOT have to have driven an Audi A4 to know it is a very good car in its class. Nor do I have to own an Apple Quad G5 to know it is a very good and fast computer.

So, lets leave the silly mud slinging you so much like to do whenever I "dare" to post in "your" Nikon DSLR forum, please.

At least I base my opinion on something, not sour sentiments.

Mr Rockwell (yes, I know, I am not a fan of his opinionated articles when he posts about things he has not tested) for instance likes the 18-55 more, evern though it is cheaply built.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1870.htm

The German prof. photomagazine "foto magazin" tested the Canon 18-55 kitlens, Nikon 18-70 kit lens, KM 17-35 kit lens, Olympus 14-45 kit lens and Pentax 18-55 kitlens together in the feb. 2005 mag.

They found the Canon and Olympus to perform better than the Nikon. Mind you, the Canon is a 100$ lens. Only the Nikon vignets badly at its longest focal length (wide open), and its fall off to the edge is not smooth like with the Canon, but is rather sudden towards the edge. Also its barrel distortion at wide angle is a lot more than with the other kit lenses tested. It also displays the highest pin cushion distortion at the longer focal end.
All in all only the Pentax kit lens performed worse than the Nikon 18-70.

So, its optical distortion, together with its odd zoom ring (Ken Rockwell: "My biggest beef with this 18 - 70 is the weird camming of the zoom. The wide focal lengths are crunched together making it hard to set the composition precisely.") and the strange reverse position of the zoom and focus ring do not make it a very impressive lens to me.

The 18-55 may be cheap, but it is at least cheerful, and performs quite well. And it leaves enough money difference for for instance a Sigma 70-300 APO DG lens!

[coldrain]

Data from said test, showing resolution, vignetting, distortion.
(sorry for the less than stellar reproduction quality, instead of scanning I quickly made some snap shots from hand at not so bright lamp light ;) )

[britkev]

The Canon & Olympus lenses ain't gonna perform too well on a D50 ;)

The Nikkon 18-70 is on my shopping list - I plan on picking up a used example from one of the multitude of D70 owners who are upgrading to the 18-200 VR.

I am aware of it's limitations, and will be buying it for it's wide-angle abilities, not telephoto. Yes there is some vignetting, but as someone else pointed out on here recently, it's not likely to be a real-world problem unless you happen to take nothing but photographs of white walls in bright sunshine ;)

[coldrain]

It also has much more than average barrel distortion at 18mm, more than the 18-55 from Nikon.

[Jason25]

The Canon & Olympus lenses ain't gonna perform too well on a D50 ;)

The Nikkon 18-70 is on my shopping list - I plan on picking up a used example from one of the multitude of D70 owners who are upgrading to the 18-200 VR.

I am aware of it's limitations, and will be buying it for it's wide-angle abilities, not telephoto. Yes there is some vignetting, but as someone else pointed out on here recently, it's not likely to be a real-world problem unless you happen to take nothing but photographs of white walls in bright sunshine ;)
Same here. I bought it mostly for wide shooting indoors with my SB-600. The AF-S is a plus as well for shooting people, like my 18 month old :) It will suffice on the wide end for my landscapes until I buy an ultra-wide, which will probably be the Tokina 12-24. I may eventually get the 18-200 VR to replace it, but we'll see. $700+ is a ton of cash for a walkaround lens. Capture will fix any vignetting I may get with the 18-70, and barrel distortion isn't much of an issue for me for what I shoot.

[Arch Stanton]

Would it be better to buy the 18-55 kit or just the body with the Sigma 18-50 and save a little (around $20)?

Which lens is better, the Nikon 18-55 or the Sigma 18-50?

[coldrain]

Would it be better to buy the 18-55 kit or just the body with the Sigma 18-50 and save a little (around $20)?

Which lens is better, the Nikon 18-55 or the Sigma 18-50?
There are two Sigma 18-50 lenses. A cheap one and a more expensive one. The expensive one (18-50mm f2.8 EX DC) is the better lens in that it has a bigger max. aperture. The cheaper Sigma is best left alone.
But the 18-55 kit lens actually is very good.. so unless you want to spend more on the expensive Sigma, the Nikon 18-55 is a good choice.

[Arch Stanton]

Forgot to specify, I meant the cheap one.

What do you think of the Nikon 70-300 (http://www.adorama.com/INKDZK.html) as an additional lens? This would leave a small hole from 55-70 or is 55-200 better?

Or, is it ok to get one "do-it-all" lens instead like the Sigma or Tamron 18-200?

[coldrain]

The Nikon 18-55mm kit lens is a good lens. It is cheaply built but its optical performance is good. The cheap Sigma is not better, so choose the Nikon.

Nikon has two 70-300mm lenses. The cheap 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor, and the more expensive 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor.

The G version is notvery good, the ED version has a much better reputation.
The Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro is a cheaper but also very good lens of this ilk. It offers an 1:2 macro mode as nice extra.

Personally I would not care about the 55-70 gap that falls between the 18-55 kit lens and a 70-300 lens. The extra 200-300mm range is much more worth while than that 55-70 area gap, and nothing a step or two can not bridge.

I would not choose the 55-200, at 200 it loses quite a bit of contrast and such.

All in all I would choose the Nikon 18-55 kit and Sigma 70-300 APO DG, they offer a wide range for a very low price, with quite impressive image quality for the price. The 18-200 lenses are preferrable if you do want just an all in one lens, but the performance will lag the other two lenses a little bit, and the focal range misses the extra 200-300 (andyou also miss that nice 1:2 macro mode).

[britkev]

Forgot to specify, I meant the cheap one.

What do you think of the Nikon 70-300 (http://www.adorama.com/INKDZK.html) as an additional lens? This would leave a small hole from 55-70 or is 55-200 better?

Or, is it ok to get one "do-it-all" lens instead like the Sigma or Tamron 18-200?

I have the "cheap and nasty" 70-300 Nikon you mention, simply because it is the only lens in anything like it's length available so cheaply. I've only had it a just over a week and it has been either too cold or too dreary here for me to give it a proper workout, however my early experiments suggest that I can live with the limitations ( it is a bit soft, particularly on the long end... and it is "slow" to autofocus - although after my Coolpix 8700 ;) ...) for a year or so while I save up for something better.

Is it a great lens? Of course not.

Is it a great lens for $130 bucks: absolutely!!

[George Riehm]

I have the "cheap and nasty" 70-300 Nikon you mention, simply because it is the only lens in anything like it's length available so cheaply. I've only had it a just over a week and it has been either too cold or too dreary here for me to give it a proper workout, however my early experiments suggest that I can live with the limitations ( it is a bit soft, particularly on the long end... and it is "slow" to autofocus - although after my Coolpix 8700 ;) ...) for a year or so while I save up for something better.

Is it a great lens? Of course not.

Is it a great lens for $130 bucks: absolutely!!

Note: for $184 you can get the Sigma 70-300 APO. I have a Nikkor 70-300 G. It's a paperweight...

[britkev]

Note: for $184 you can get the Sigma 70-300 APO. I have a Nikkor 70-300 G. It's a paperweight...

You pays your money and take your choice: I have the Nikon and 54 bucks in my 80-400VR fund already ;)